R v Bonat [2004] NSWCCA 240

R v Bonat [2004] NSWCCA 240

The convictions could not stand because there was no acceptable basis in logic and reasonableness to treat the complainant's uncorroborated evidence as credible or reliable on the convicted counts but not on the acquitted counts. The factual inconsistency was reinforced by discrepancies in the complainant's accounts, delay in complaint including an unexplained further delay after she went to Western Australia, prejudice to the appellant's ability to answer the allegations, and the appellant's unshaken denials. Those factors made the guilty verdicts unreasonable and required substitution of verdicts of acquittal rather than a new trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Jury Convictions
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions under counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 set aside; verdicts of acquittal directed in lieu.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'sexual Offences Against a Child' 'delay in Complaint' 'uncorroborated Complainant Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'verdicts of Acquittal Versus New Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'sexual Offences Against a Child' 'delay in Complaint' 'uncorroborated Complainant Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'verdicts of Acquittal Versus New Trial']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Jury Convictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts on counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 were unreasonable and unsupported having regard to the evidence and the not guilty verdicts on counts 1, 3, 5 and 7.' "Whether there was an acceptable explanation in logic and reasonableness for differentiating between the complainant's evidence on counts resulting in conviction and counts resulting in acquittal." 'Whether the appropriate relief was entry of verdicts of acquittal or a new trial.' "Whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury that reasonable doubt on one or more charges should be taken into account in assessing the complainant's credibility on the other charges."]

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions could not stand because there was no acceptable basis in logic and reasonableness to treat the complainant's uncorroborated evidence as credible or reliable on the convicted counts but not on the acquitted counts. The factual inconsistency was reinforced by discrepancies in the complainant's accounts, delay in complaint including an unexplained further delay after she went to Western Australia, prejudice to the appellant's ability to answer the allegations, and the appellant's unshaken denials. Those factors made the guilty verdicts unreasonable and required substitution of verdicts of acquittal rather than a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions under counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 set aside; verdicts of acquittal directed in lieu.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed' 'Convictions under counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 set aside' 'Direct the entry of verdicts of acquittal in lieu thereof']